President Obama was caught flatfooted by the embarrassing truth about Spain’s “green economy” after he instructed us — on eight separate occasions — to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain” as a model for a U.S. future. Spain, of course, is suffering an economic meltdown from enormous public debt incurred through programs like a mandated “green economy.”

But Obama also just implored Spain to drastically scale back or risk becoming Greece. A flip he immediately flopped, by pushing hard to enact the Kerry-Lieberman “path to insolvency” bill based on … Spain. (Cue Benny Hill theme.)

Of course, the experience of Denmark — a country with a population half that of Manhattan’s, not exactly a useful energy model for our rather different economy and society — is no great shakes, either.

But it gets better.

In my new book — Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America — I describe the absurdity of the “free ice cream” theories of the “green economy” our statist friends now embrace as their latest raison d’etre for a controlled society. My mother-in-law — visiting from Denmark — is reading my book with a particular interest in its exposé of what her heavily taxed labor pays for in that country.

The book also prompted her to relay an amazing new anecdote to the case study referred to by the Danes as “the fairy tale of the windmills.”

In the northern region of Jutland called Thy, Denmark is forcing people off of their land (“Kelo” is apparently Danish for “Kelo”) and — wait for it — preparing to clear-cut fifteen square kilometers of forest, and eventually thirty, in order to put up more of the bird- and job-killing monstrosities.

These giant windmills are not even intended to fill an energy gap for the Danish economy. No, they are to be onshore experimental versions of massive new off-shore turbines — with the facility to be rented out to wind mavens like Siemens.

The argument they are forwarding for doing this is not just the typically risible claim that this is necessary for the environment. After all, “[the] deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of the CO2 emissions of 100,000 people per year.”

They are also forwarding the argument that this must occur in order to create Danish jobs.

Of course, “creating jobs,” to the extent such mandates can do this (as they are typically net job killers), appears much more necessary after the state first made it difficult for the private sector to do such things. Denmark enforced what methods, and what quantity of those methods, are acceptable for producing electricity. It always turns out that the acceptable ways are inefficient, intermittent, and expensive. Which sort of explains the need for mandates.

Employers, who pass taxes and other costs along until they can’t, leave for less inane political and economic environments. Like Kentucky, for example, as I detail in Power Grab.

So, yes, President Obama, let’s think of what’s happening in these European countries.

For the moment, put aside the spectacular irony of what the “green” agenda necessitates well before reaching its logical conclusion. There is a more important lesson here, as our policy sages in Washington seek to cram through a replica of Europe’s social democracy here before November, when voters get to weigh in on this form of “change.”

The key lesson to be learned from Spain: these glorified make-work schemes, which saddle the economy with boondoggles of massive physical redundancies, inherently create “bubbles.” The bubbles exist solely because of wealth transfers from taxpayers — meaning from productive uses to intrinsically uneconomic ones (again, they have to be mandated and subsidized to exist).

The bubbles only avoid bursting with constant infusions of redistributed taxpayer wealth. But simply existing is not politically tolerable to the constituencies that politicians create with the subsidy and mandate schemes. There is a reason that GE’s Washington lobbying budget tops that of all of Big Oil … combined. Once a “market” is created by government fiat, recipients of the largess pour tremendous resources into keeping the gravy train rolling, and gaining steam.

This is just what happened in Spain, where the public deficit threatened an economic default.

And in Denmark, where the politicians look to clear every inch of land they can find — even if it happens to be occupied or forested — to put up more windmills in the name of “creating jobs.”

We have learned from Obama’s models in Spain and Denmark (and also Germany) that no net jobs are — or can be — created by these financial rat holes. Opportunity costs and direct jobs lost due to the economic pain caused by higher energy prices and other restrictions on individual liberty harm the economy as a whole. And what the economy gets in return are temporary jobs requiring more debt — which means taxes.

The schemes drain the public treasury, passing off your hard-earned money to entrenched interests. And, now, they lead to clear-cutting forests and “takings.”

In a way — a particular way known mostly to Washington, but apparently also everywhere else the “market socialists” rule — it just makes sense.

48 Comments, 20 Threads

The amazng thing about the wind farm racket is that there is no consideration of the environmental impact. In addition to deforestation and bird kills there is the obvious and yet ignored question of what is the impact on weather and climate. That the greenie politboros can’t imagine that taking large amounts of energy out of the atmosphere will have adverse effects on weather and climate is good reason to distrust and depose them. Aside from the destructive effects wind farms may have, they are an eyesore.

I’m not sure about how much energy the windmills take from the atmosphere, but there is a more efficient way. Water is about 700 [?] times as dense as air. Given that, a hydraulically driven turbine should be hundreds of times more efficient at extracting energy from the tides as from the winds. I know that some experiments have been run, but I don’t know the results. Of course the greens will complain that their favorite fish are being converted to sushi.

Paul
Phillip Bratby supplies these figures…
Energy density factor of flowing water 1,000 times that of wind. Fossil fuels one billion times that of wind. Nuclear fission a million billion times that of wind. Nuclear fusion trillion, trillion…..

In Ireland the government mandated that the ESB (national electricity supply board) purchase a certain amount of ‘green’ electricity. When the windmills were put up, the owners simply refused to sell to the ESB at the existing prices. As they were mandated to buy, the ESB had to put up electricity prices across the country to get the windmills to sell.
Moreover, when the windmills are running the gas and oil power stations are too. You can’t just put the fires out and restart them in a few hours, so they keep burning fuel and just disconnect them from the grid so as to pretend that the ‘green’ energy is contributing.

There are a great many relatively new Somali immigrants, now reaching numbers that are causing concerns over Islam-inspired and culturally-motivated crime. So, it’s not clear to me what steps the Danes are making to curb Islamization.

Not doubting or arguing with you; genuinely and sincerely looking for evidence here.

Meanwhile, muslims are pouring into these countries – and mine, England, who have no intention of working, but of displacing and suppressing the native populations. Convenient for the GE’s, Soros’s etc of this world.

This post and G. M. Roper’s of May 23rd share the related theme of Obama administration delusions of Omnipotence. The question arises as to why so-called Progressives always discard past experience and believe that this time the boondoggle will work out right. It comes down to this: Progressives are prisoners of the “Fuehrer Princip”, i.e, the omnipotent/omniscient leader be he called Chairman, Fuehrer, Duce, Caudillo or the One, will always make the right choices all the time. Being enthralled with the power of personality they never question why time and time again their progressive program results in disaster. For them it is never the idea that is wrong and when the system fails they simply look for the next “Fuehrer” to make their fantasy world come true.

I understand its quick and easy to argue against the future and defend the past. Short term, to turn our backs on renewable energy and stick with the mid-east addiction, oil guzzlin, uncontrolled consumption might be tempting and still “doable” but its a grave mistake. Even many in the party of no recognize the need to make changes in order to protect our national interest. Sure, some of the programs are a bit “whacko” and some just do not work, but we must start the process and change our ways. We will once again suffer, long term, if we do not change our ways. And people are growing weary of our sole source oil obsession and are beginning to catch on to the past mistakes. Our future and national survival will depend on the decisions we make today. Nice article, thanks.

Typical Progressive thinking. Future socialism will always succeed where past and existing socialism have failed. I can only predict one thing about the future of energy: The Laws of Thermodynamics will not be repealed by Progressive ideology.

Poor Citizen, I want to let you know that I HAVE noticed the change in your tone. I do think that you want to be a unifier. However, you seem to buy into this thinking that Republicans, conservatives, or whoever argues in favor of the “status-quo” (as our fearless leader tells it) want to resist sensible solutions to the world’s, and the countries, energy needs. Conservatives are absolutely obsessed with things that WORK. That is the secret to get inside the head of a conservative, my friend.

Now, for my partisan bit. I take the side of conseratives, because the more liberal a person is the more they seem to indulge in theories. Liberal thinking is obsessed with imagination for the most part. It is dangerous. For a small example, think of the asinine thinking that the population of the world is too large, and the cause of all our problems. Such people are advocating death, or at the very least non-life. It is an internal contradiction that they give a rat’s butt about other people’s lives. Conservatives stand against such internal conflicts, because they do not WORK.

Poor Citizen is not being a unifyer, he is attempting to use “popular front” tactics. These tactics, long a staple of Fascist movements, always begin with some reasonable sounding statement but it is designed to trap you into a specific agenda. Poor Citizen is actually trying to entice you into supporting the green agenda.

Could this be any more clear? “Green politicians” are merely socialist buffoons under a different name. Their goal is the same: ignore the free market and the laws of physics in order to start a new, massively expensive governmental program to enrich their supporters. This is corruption, plain and simple.

After the revelation of ClimateGate, how can anyone still perpetuate the failed theory of AGW?

The solution? Find every politician who believes in this hoax and vote them out of office. Haven’t we had enough of childish fantasy guiding policy at the highest levels of government? Let’s get rid of these wishful thinkers and replace them with folks who know what the real world is all about.

I think we need to just drop the charade of a lot of “green movement.” A lot of the movement is based on the idea that humans are a scourge to mother earth and that we should allow human misery and suffering on a massive scale in order to push environmentalism. (Remember “Silent Spring” and DDT? Responsible for tens of millions of deaths in the developing world and all based on fiction?) The modern green movement is largely based around a new way to transfer wealth as a form of “green tax.” Of course as the Spanish found out, that comes once in the form of subsidies to fund such projects and then later in the form of much higher energy bills. The high cost of energy leads to fewer jobs and a less productive society. I believe reducing or eliminating foreign oil dependency is necessary for our economy and will help fight against Islamic terrorism, but here is where anyone can insert a fitting reference to Don Quixote and the futility of tilting at windmills. We could all laugh at the joke and then go home except for the fact that the “Green mafia” is still trying to pick our pockets.

Human rights and federal oversight create an amalgamation that is a quicksand of government takeover, where government becomes fixed on a path to overtake all of the economy. You cannot take away either part, and the more you struggle against it, it seems, the more you sink into it. The problem with society’s perspective is that different parties and factions either embrace this concept, or blame everyone for embracing it. They hate each other with equal intensities.

I’m not embracing big government; I am against Obama for reasons of value, pure and simple. It very well may be that one day it will be said that bailouts (and forcing industrial – green – revolutions) were necessary and inevitable, and then where will you be in whatever position you take if you have not stood by morals and values all along? You will be ONE OF THEM. With your pants around your ankles in a dry field regretting your damn luck to have Evolution as your god.

The one true God doesn’t change, and if you are looking for consistency and discipline that is where you will find it. With God. Jesus Christ of Nazareth for more info…

I want to point something else out that I am seeing, which has links to the “green” Discussion. A bait-and-switch has occurred with the Global Warming “debate”. Many conservatives have fully embraced Evolution (molecules-to-man sense) after hearing from scientists who reject Global Warming and who tow the evolutionary line in the process. This bait-and-switch conspiracy is too large to fall on human hands (know what I mean?). If you believe in Jesus Christ, please, look into the validity of Genesis, namely the Creation account and Flood. Evolution (not Natural Selection – if you don’t understand you need to research!) is a stinking lie. It is the true trojan horse.

kevin-If God is all knowing and all powerful, why is that he is not “responsible” for the “creation” of evolution? Could “evolution” not be part of His master plan? When you can argue factually against my questions then maybe I’ll do a little research, until then I’ll continue to follow the science on”facts” and God in matters of the “spirtual”.

The fact is that there is no evidence that says one form turns into another form. Observable science has always shown a net loss or rearrangement of information, but never a gain. Never anything that would allow the Belief that a fish might grow an arm or something. Most people are tricked into thinking that Natural Selection is supposed to prove or equivocate Evolution.

For the record, about three years ago when I began looking into Evolution, and if it fit with Genesis, I did begin with a fair and open mind. It amounts to mere hear-say, but it is my honest testimony. I found Evolution to be only jive talk.

We can’t prove either argument, however the reason why the Macro-Evolution theory is so dangerous to the Christian faith is because it sets the stage for death in the world before the sin of Adam and Eve. ‘The wages of sin is death’. If death occured before the fall of Man the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not needed ergo no need for a savior. According to the Judeo/Christian faith there was no death before the fall, it was a perpetual paradise, which we screwed up by disobeying God. That made us, the Earth and everything else die, henceforth Sin created the 2nd law of thermodynamics=Entropy. Evolution simply doesn’t fit with the true Christian faith.

Michael, this format doesn’t allow me to respond to your last post, so I am posting here. You had a finalizing (for you) question, of which I also want to remind you of the emphasis you put on it. If I can answer it in a valid way then if you are an honest person, in my opinion, it should cause you to think about the entirety of both positions, Evolution and young-earth Creationism (as indicated by the Genesis account), all over again, perhaps.

(Also, to Jacob and anyone else who may notice, your question, Michael, I believe, would fall into that category of “junk science” that Jacob accused me of. The main reason I think this is because people often accuse each other of “junk-science” in this debate because they themselves are not scientists. They learn, from scientists, that their question and answer soundbites, analogies, whatever reduced-laymen-terms that are normally given or asked in these talks are sort of hyper-untechnical, or out of contexts. So, they typically will “take the high-road”, side with the evolutionary majority, and accuse everyone else of being unscientific, as they themselves do not either understand how to explain the information or do not think that spending the time to explain is worth it, apparently.)

Now, even though you use “consistent” as a qualifier it is my understanding that radioactive decay “dates” are not consistent. What is consistent is the scientific process used to extract the information. So what’s wrong with this? There are assumptions about the actual properties of the initial rock samples that play into the science. Assumptions that might never be answerable, simply from the super long ages involved, or the fact that nobody has observed and recorded the original deposition of the rocks. There are typically three assumptions that Creationists will point out in radioactive decay dating.

1. That the initial conditions (amount of daughter elements at the time of creation) of the rock sample are known.

2. The amount of traceable compounds (parent or daughter elements) has not been altered since the rock formed.

3. The decay-rate of parent elements has remained constant through the time-span.

Now, these assumptions alone are enough to show that the science is not sealed when it comes to information that could be discovered in the future that may or may not change how the world understands radioactive-decay dating. Of course, upon your endeavored research there are various other evidences that show the earth is not old (and, even the contradiction – young). Also, to prove the validity in the caution that is given towards these assumptions by Creationists (alleged “anti-science crowd”) there are demonstrable facts that give credence.

For example, “A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).”

So, the return question to you, Michael, is this. Am I being unreasonable?

Absolute crap. There are mountains – literally mountains – of evidence that “one form turns into another form.”

The only reasons for denying something that has been as solidly established as gravity – actually, even more so, we know how evolution works, and have only a tenuous understanding of what gravity might actually be – is that you are either 1) ignorant, or 2) lying.

This is somewhat off topic, but related in the sense of “junk science.” Mutations can add, corrupt, and take away genetic information. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
The talk origins archive is quite extensive and includes instances of both micro and macro evolution.

The reason this is important is that arguments for or against the green movement from an anti-science perspective are not going to carry much weight in the long run. I personally think that the “green mafia’s” ultimate goal is to handicap free enterprise in a way that socialism failed to. The fact of the matter is that many programmes that are supposedly “green” behave like a cult; you can give the money to me (and Al Gore or the government), and I promise I’ll pass it on to Gaia. Belief in evolution has nothing to do with it.

For the record, I am an orthodox Jew; however, I don’t feel the need to drag my religion or my g’d into debates on Obama’s “green” policy. Stop shoving Genesis and a faulty reading of it into debates about environmentalism.

“Many conservatives have fully embraced Evolution (molecules-to-man sense) after hearing from scientists who reject Global Warming and who tow the evolutionary line in the process. This bait-and-switch conspiracy is too large to fall on human hands (know what I mean?). If you believe in Jesus Christ, please, look into the validity of Genesis, namely the Creation account and Flood. Evolution (not Natural Selection – if you don’t understand you need to research!) is a stinking lie. It is the true trojan horse.”

“The fact is that there is no evidence that says one form turns into another form. Observable science has always shown a net loss or rearrangement of information, but never a gain. Never anything that would allow the Belief that a fish might grow an arm or something. Most people are tricked into thinking that Natural Selection is supposed to prove or equivocate Evolution.”

These quotes are from you, and they are both junk science. In the interest of space and sanity, I’ll refer you to the talkorigins FAQ that covers many of the topics that I know you’ll bring up. http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html The truth is that the earth we live on is extremely old, and in the course of its existence, there have been many living creatures that have changed from one form to another to another. This is called evolution, and denying it doesn’t invalidate it. Furthermore, please don’t try to tell people what Genesis says. I doubt you understand it very well, and it frankly doesn’t have much to do with Obama’s green scheme.

As I said previously; anti-science distracts from the issue, which is about green taxes that will bludgeon private enterprise into submission. Let’s all keep junk science and a faulty reading of Bereshit out of our politics.

In response to your comment below, I’m sorry you think that. Allow me to refer you to Answersingenesis.org, as my primary resource for this topic. It is a ministry that consists of professionals and scientists who uphold the authenticity and authority of the the entire Word of God, beginning with Genesis. They also refute Evolution quite well. I’m sure you understand that the quotations you took from me and called “junk science” are meant to be only concise ministrations of the idea I put forth – that Genesis is historically accurate, and Evolution a false concept. I assure you, Young Earth Creationists are very much not anti-science.

Young Earth..one last question Kevin and I’m done..I promise. How can you explain the constant decay of uranium and the formation of it’s daughter elements found in granite deposits which when worked backwards give dates of initial deposition way beyond the thousands of years ( up to 2 billion yrs) I understand the earth to be according to creationists?

“The fact is that there is no evidence that says one form turns into another form. ”
==========================
That statement has the implicit assumption that the first ‘form’ is in fact a single ‘cell’ entity. That’s not even close to the reality of cell based life which contains billions of cells, each of which can be modified by exposure to radiation of one type or another. There is no conflict between the concepts of God’s Creation and subsequent evolutionary change.

False, That was not the implication. Although, you could suppose it nonetheless, and even still you are wrong. Mutated cells are not different forms, unless you mean to say that they are simply things that are degraded or slightly changed without perishing. But does that mean if a person loses their sight and learns echolocation they have evolved into another form? They aren’t humans anymore?

So, the word ‘form’ is too general now as we talk about it without further definition. What I was implying was a distinct form such as a scale… becoming a feather, an arm… into a wing. That is speculated by Evolutionists, and called fact. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of something becoming something else. There is no need to get hyper or semi-technical here. You know what I mean. Dinosaurs didn’t change into birds. A bird’s wing requires special design that could not arise from random mutation, nor without gains in genetic information.

We DO NOT see that happening. Where are the intermediates living right now? Where are the transitional forms in living species today??? I know, I know, if they’re transitional we don’t know what they will change into. Well, that is a cop-out. What we see in nature is a Biological Design Matrix with Forms doing just what they are supposed to do. Birds aren’t going to one day develop propellers or jet engines, EVER. Why do I know this? Do I know the future???

Here is a relevant quote, “I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!” – Dr. Evil

Evolutionists suppose that similarity in Design is really an indication of Common Ancestry. It is two different interpretations that explain the evidence. Evolutionists fail to realize this (or admit it) and believe that they have claimed the limitations of valid interpretations based on their materialist bias.

Conservatives should heed and beware what they are signing up for. The theory of Evolution has done absolutely ZERO for humanity. Why are you readily signing up for it? It doesn’t do anything besides undermine Scripture. There IS A MOTIVE. Oh, wait, it does do something. It justifies liberals. I tell you, Evolution is the real trojan horse. You’ve already lost (don’t let it be true).

This was a very interessting article and lots of food for thought on the perils of the new “Green Economy.” I do have to pick at one big error though. At over 5.5 million, Denmarks population is nearly 5 times that of Manhattans (~1.6 million). This actually makes the situation worse for Danes in that there are more people who could use the land their clearing for these wind farms and more people who’s jobs could be wiped out.

Have you noticed the trend in political cartoons involving Obama? He is beginning to resemble Alfred E. Newman. Of course, Mad Magazine had that cover way back in August of ’08 BUT now the political cartoons are beginning to reflect it. And once he is universally depicted as A. Newman in the political cartoons…well once 70% of the population openly mocks him, it is all over for him.

The Obama/Soros Plan To Destroy America;
OBAMA’S MAIN ‘PUPPETEER’ IS THE HUNGARIAN BORN JEW – GEORGE SOROS.

With his financial ability in the billions of dollars to back whatever cause he chooses and his powerful control of the media, Soros has the means to engineer the political and economic destinies of entire nations. Indeed, Soros has already implemented his global agenda in both Georgia and Kosovo.

The latest “cause” backed by Soros is the Obama presidency. Known as Obama’s “money man,” Soros’s involvement with Obama’s national political career began in 2005 with Soros fundraising for Obama’s campaign for US Senate and continued through the 2007 Presidential campaign launch with huge fundraising operations managed by Soros.

Soros, a proponent of the “hard left,” has also been funneling money into the Democratic Party and to its candidates with the intent on building a slate of Senators and Representatives with socialist leanings. “George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman, Christine Iverson, “and he who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Through his Open Society Institute, Soros has contributed to left wing socialist groups such as, Human Rights Watch, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, The New American Foundation, ACORN, MoveOn, and his own, Center For American Progress, of which, Obama recently appointed its senior fellow, Todd Stern, as his ‘Climate Czar.’ Stern, a Zionist Jew, is the chief architect of the socialist-inspired Climate Change Bill, just passed by Congress.

George Soros now has a superhighway to Change – ‘Socialist Change.’ We are already beginning to see the largest growth in government in the history of America. Hell-bent on destroying the American dollar and installing a global currency, Soros has got his bought-and-paid-for White House stooge now installing his socialist agenda.http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=411

KevinB-young earth….The article you are quoting from has not been “peer reviewed” in any geology journal not directly tied to creationism. So, no you haven’t answered my question about uranium in granite. The quantity of argon generated in a short time span is not enough to yield a statistically valid result. Heads will 50/50 on a coin flip over a large number of flips–but it isn’t unheard of that you would get 10 heads in a row to begin with. But does that discount the 50/50 probabilty over the long term? (rhetorical)K-40′s half life being 1.2 billion years and you choose this as you measuring tool for a rock just 20 yrs old is beyond absurd. Junk science and besides–the original question was never answered anyway.